Brandenburg v. United States, 5681.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 5681.,5681. |
| Citation | 78 F.2d 811 |
| Parties | BRANDENBURG v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., George Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Max Mehler, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant.
Harlan Besson, U. S. Atty., and William F. Smith, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Trenton, N. J., for the United States.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
In the court below Leo W. Brandenburg was indicted, found guilty, and sentenced on an indictment charging him with violation of section 194 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 317), which, after providing for larcenies from the mails, provides, "whoever shall * * * receive, or * * * have in his possession * * * any article * * * which has been so stolen * * * knowing the same to have been so stolen * * * shall be fined not more than $2,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." It will thus be seen that the criminal element as above stated, so far as the mails of the United States are concerned, is the possession of articles knowing they were stolen from the mails.
From the proofs in this case, it appears that on November 14, 1933, the United States Treasury shipped by mail to Charlotte, N. C., $100,000 in $5 bills, and while driving it from the station to the post office, the truck was held up and the package stolen. On November 25th following $9,850 of these stolen notes were detected by the paying teller of the Rutherford National Bank a bank in northern New Jersey. The bills were in the possession of McGrath, then head bookkeeper of the bank, who subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge of having these bills in his possession, knowing they were taken from the mails. The defendant was also indicted and charged with having previously had possession of the stolen bills, and the testimony of McGrath at the trial was that the defendant had given him a package containing the bills and requested him to have an account opened in a fictitious name in the bank. McGrath stated that he had received from the defendant the package containing the bills. The defendant said the package he gave McGrath contained no bills, but contained some borrowed books. The testimony of Edwards was that he was present and saw McGrath taking away a package, but was unable to state what it contained. These two men were the sole witnesses against the defendant. If McGrath's testimony was believed, it showed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. United States 8212 5443
...from the mail 'knowing the same to have been so stolen.' 18 U.S.C. § 317 (1934 ed.) (emphasis added). See, e.g., Brandenburg v. United States, 78 F.2d 811 (CA3 1935). In 1939 Congress eliminated the word 'so' preceding the word 'stolen.' H.R.Rep. No. 734, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1939), ex......
-
U.S. v. Tavoularis
...note 1, supra, Connor described a secondary market in Treasury bills made up of various government bond dealers. 19 Brandenburg v. United States, 78 F.2d 811 (3d Cir. 1935), involved the predecessor to the current 18 U.S.C. § 1708, which now prohibits possession of articles stolen from the ......
-
United States v. Hines
...from an authorized mail depository, and not just stolen. Prior to 1939, the statute supported the defendant's argument. Brandenburg v. United States, 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 811. But in that year the statute was amended to require only that the defendant know that the mail matter in his possession ......
-
United States v. Gardner, 26495.
...to section 1708, did require proof that a defendant knew the matter he possessed was stolen from the mails. In Brandenburg v. United States, 78 F.2d 811 (3d Cir. 1935), the Third Circuit reversed a conviction under section 317 because the government failed to establish such knowledge. In re......